Holding Leaders Accountable
Accountability through the courts — and its limits
Members of The Red Owl Group have repeatedly gone to court to hold the Tribal Business Council accountable. Across more than one case, the same barrier kept returning — sovereign immunity — and only the People can change that.
When the Council adopted Resolution No. 24-248-FWF — authorizing the transfer of $250 million from the People’s Fund — two of our people, Terrance Fredericks and Carol Goodbear challenged it in tribal court, arguing the action violated their due-process rights under the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA) and our Constitution.
They pursued every proper, lawful channel — through the Tribal District Court and on appeal to the MHA Nation Supreme Court. Their effort was serious, documented, and grounded in the rights of the People. But it met a wall that no amount of evidence could move: sovereign immunity.
This was not the only such effort. In a second case, Good Bear v. Fox, members challenged Council spending made without public resolutions — and a court agreed that immunity could be set aside, but only for a narrow, forward-looking remedy. Together, the two cases show both the promise and the hard limit of the courthouse.
$250M
Transfer challenged
Resolution No. 24-248-FWF authorized moving $250 million from the People’s Fund.
Dismissed
Outcome · Oct 2025
The MHA Supreme Court affirmed dismissal — sovereign immunity barred the case.
Art. VI §3(b)
The only waiver
Immunity is waived only where an ICRA violation is first adjudicated by a court.
The People
Who can change it
Only the People — by referendum or constitutional revision — can waive the Council’s immunity.
Case One · the $250M transfer
Fredericks et al v. Fox et al
MHA Nation Supreme Court · No. AP-2025-001
Who brought it
Enrolled members Terrance Fredericks and Carol Goodbear, on behalf of our people seeking accountability.
Who it was against
Chairman Mark N. Fox and members of the Tribal Business Council.
What it challenged
Resolution No. 24-248-FWF — the transfer of $250 million from the People’s Fund — as a violation of due-process rights under ICRA.
How it ended
The Supreme Court affirmed dismissal on October 20, 2025, holding that sovereign immunity bars adjudication.
How it unfolded
2024
The resolution
The Tribal Business Council adopts Resolution No. 24-248-FWF, authorizing the transfer of $250 million from the People’s Fund into a new investment account.
Nov 7, 2024
District Court hearing
The Tribal District Court hears the matter and grants the Council’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
May 7, 2025
Appeal briefing
On appeal to the MHA Nation Supreme Court, the Council members (Defendants-Appellees) file their Response Brief defending the dismissal.
Oct 20, 2025
Supreme Court affirms
The MHA Nation Supreme Court affirms the dismissal, holding that sovereign immunity bars further adjudication of the case.
The members’ case
What the community argued
A protected interest
Members hold a vested interest in the People’s Fund distributions — akin to trust income — that due process protects.
Decided behind closed doors
The $250M transfer was approved in closed session, without notice, and concealed until it was a “fait accompli.” “No notice + no hearing = no due process.”
Immunity was waived
Article VI, Section 3(b) waives immunity for ICRA claims seeking injunctive relief — so, they argued, the courts could hear the case.
“Our Constitution guarantees due process and reserves to the People the power to veto Council resolutions through referendum — a right rendered illusory if major financial decisions are finalized in closed meetings and kept from public scrutiny until irreversible actions are taken.”
The barrier
What is sovereign immunity — and why did it end the case?
Sovereign immunity is a legal shield that protects the Tribe — and the Council acting for it — from being sued, unless that immunity has been clearly waived. Our Constitution provides only a narrow waiver (Article VI, Section 3(b)): the courts may hear a claim only where it is first adjudicated that an ICRA violation occurred.
The Supreme Court held that the members had not cleared that threshold — and so the door to the courthouse stayed closed. In the Court’s own words:
“This Court hereby AFFIRMS the District Court decision as sovereign immunity bars further adjudication in this case.”
Case Two · spending without public resolutions
Good Bear et al v. Fox et al
MHA Nation · No. CV2023-0469
Who brought it
Enrolled members Carol Good Bear, Terrance Fredericks, Todd Hall, Patti Jo Hall, Kelly Hosie, and Edward S. “Tyke” Danks.
Who it was against
Chairman Mark N. Fox, Council members, and the Tribal Business Council.
What it challenged
Council spending made without public resolutions, contrary to Article VI, Section 5 — depriving members of their right to referendum under Article VIII.
Where it stands
The members’ forward-looking claim survived dismissal; the Council’s appeal and motion for reconsideration were both denied. The case remains pending discovery and further action by the parties.
A door cracked open
Unlike the $250M case, here a court agreed that immunity could be set aside — but only narrowly. The District Court held that Article VI, Section 3(b) waives immunity for prospective injunctive relief to enforce the Indian Civil Rights Act. The members’ claim — that spending without public resolutions undermines the right to referendum — was allowed to move forward.
“Insofar as the complaint seeks prospective injunctive relief to enjoin the Defendants from violating the Plaintiffs’ rights under Article VIII … the motion to dismiss on sovereign immunity … grounds is DENIED.”
But the same order dismissed everything else — no recovering funds already spent, no declaratory judgment, no accounting. The waiver reaches only what the Council might do going forward.
The Council’s own answer
“Plaintiffs cannot undo their election loss or make political decisions or policy changes through the Tribal Court. Under the political question doctrine, adjudication of these issues and powers is reserved for the Tribal Business Council.”
In other words, the Council argues that the People’s remedy is political — at the ballot box, through the power they hold as voters. That is exactly the point: those powers mean nothing unless the People can truly exercise them. Referendum and constitutional revision are how the People turn that “political remedy” into real, binding accountability.
How it unfolded
Sep 5, 2023
The suit is filed
Our people file Good Bear et al v. Fox (CV2023-0469), challenging Council spending made without public resolutions — which deprives members of their right to referendum under Article VIII.
Dec 6, 2023
Council moves to dismiss
The Tribal Business Council moves to dismiss the complaint, asserting sovereign immunity and the political-question doctrine.
May 9, 2024
A door cracks open
Judge B.J. Jones grants the motion in part and denies it in part — holding that Article VI, Section 3(b) waives immunity for prospective injunctive relief to enforce ICRA. The members’ referendum-rights claim survives.
Jan 17, 2025
Council’s appeal denied
The MHA Nation Supreme Court denies the Council’s appeal of that interim order, ruling it is interlocutory and not yet appealable. The case continues.
Mar 31, 2025
Reconsideration denied
The Council’s motion for reconsideration is denied.
The point that matters
Real accountability requires waiving the Council’s immunity — and only the People can do that.
“The MHA Constitution provides Appellants with a direct remedy to address their claims … Article VIII provides that tribal members may, upon a petition by at least 10 percent of the qualified voters of each community, demand a referendum on any proposed or enacted ordinance or resolution of the Tribal Business Council.”
So let us take the Council at its word. In both lawsuits, their own attorneys told us plainly: the People’s remedy is political. That remedy is the referendum — and the ballot box. We pass referendums to overrule and bind the Council’s decisions, and we vote out the leaders who refuse to honor the will of the People.
The courts alone aren’t enough
Together these cases mark the outer limit of the courthouse. In one, the door stayed shut entirely. In the other, it opened only a sliver — a forward-looking order that cannot recover what was already spent or change how power is held. Even the Council’s own attorneys argued the real recourse is political: a referendum under Article VIII.
The People hold the key
A waiver of immunity must be clear and deliberate. The People can create exactly that — through a referendum that enacts a binding waiver, or through constitutional revision that builds accountability and a real forum into our governing document. Referendum and constitutional revision are how we open the door the courts cannot.
The record
Court filings & documents
Read the filings for yourself. These are the complete court records in each matter.
Good Bear v. Fox
No. CV2023-0469
Fredericks v. Fox
No. AP-2025-001 · MHA Nation Supreme Court
Tribal Members Are Shareholders of Tribal Trust Funds
Garrison Dam Segregated Shares · Public Law 553
Accountability starts with the People.
The courts have shown the limit. Referendum and constitutional revision are how the People can waive immunity and demand real accountability. Learn how both work.